With barely a whisper of acknowledgement, Liverpool marked an anniversary of
sorts earlier this week.

It was two years ago when, on the eve of a trip to Old Trafford, Roy Hodgson left Anfield, his brief tenure ending after 20 grey games during which he accumulated a meagre 25 points.

Given statistical tables are often given the same level of worship at Liverpool the Greeks once offered their Gods, Brendan Rodgers would have looked upon those figures with a certain degree of trepidation.

Heading into the new year, he had won the same number of Premier League games over the same period as Hodgson, collecting three more points thanks to three more draws.

To those who measure the difference in numbers, it is not much. In reality, the difference between Liverpool under Rodgers and Hodgson stretches several volumes.

There has been no undercurrent of discontent towards Rodgers, no murmurings of disquiet from the training ground, no suggestions he is keeping things ticking over until a better option comes along. He is not looking over his shoulder worrying about which ex-manager will take his job.

Rodgers, like everyone else connected to Anfield, is unhappy with Liverpool’s position and results. He expects and need January additions to trigger a major improvement in the second half of the season.

His greatest success so far is ensuring the overwhelming majority of supporters trust him to lead them through what could be a time-consuming ordeal. For the uninitiated, what it ultimately comes down to is Rodgers selling a vision.

There has been criticism the Northern Irishman is trying to ‘reinvent the wheel’ at Liverpool, preaching to the congregation about the passing game trademarked by Bill Shankly and embodied by Kenny Dalglish.

Rodgers has never claimed to be fashioning Liverpool’s style, only restoring and replenishing it. He was recruited to weld tradition with a more modern approach to coaching and sports science. Those of a sensitive disposition think a eulogy of Rodgers is disparaging to Dalglish. It is not.

It is a fact Dalglish was not a hands-on coach. He delegated most training duties to assistant Steve Clarke. His desire was for players to go out and express themselves and play with freedom in the Liverpool way but his tendency to select, or sometimes change team selections at the last minute meant that certain tactical intricacies were overlooked.

The broader philosophy was hardly dissimilar to Rodgers’, but the current manager demands players work within a clearly defined structure and plan. You watch Rodgers’ side and you see how it has been coached, what they are trying to achieve, what each player is supposed to be doing in his persevering with 4-3-3. You may not agree with it, you may even think it is passing for passing’s sake, but the training pitch hours are visible.

Under Hodgson, the defensive, rigid structure was also easily identifiable but utterly unpalatable. Even under Gérard Houllier and Rafa Benítez, training was focused more on organisation, defensive solidity, and a meticulous understanding of the opposition. It was about the next game and getting the result rather than a ‘philosophy’.

They were, at their heart, pragmatic, counter-attacking managers.

There were more 11-a-side games at Melwood, a particular source of unrest under Hodgson due to his propensity for stopping play every five minutes to explain to each player where they should be standing.

Under Rodgers, the work is virtually all based on offensive play, with small-sided games indoctrinating the belief possession is king.

This system has been spread across all levels of Anfield. Since recently appointing Alex Inglethorpe from Spurs to his youth coaching ranks, from the first team down to

Liverpool’s under-nines, every side is playing the same 4-3-3.

It is what Barcelona do, protecting their identity regardless of changing personnel.

The other factor is man-management. When Gareth Southgate once famously said of Sven-Goran Eriksson “we wanted Churchill and got Iain Duncan-Smith” it was not a reflection on the Swede’s ability to organise two banks of four.

Rodgers can sound like a charismatic salesman. The modern coach has to be - to fans, supporters, media and, to some extent, his own board.

Say the right things and you are accused of playing to the gallery. Get it wrong on a weekly basis, like Hodgson, and you are finished.

Rodgers’ personality has warmed him to the dressing room, but as the misguided Being: Liverpool documentary demonstrated, his management is not without backbone.

Liverpool won a recent fixture having enjoyed 26 shots on target and Rodgers called a meeting to congratulate his team on their win. Then he asked a couple of attackers how many of those shots they had had. Not enough. In the next game, those same players peppered the opposition’s goal. It is not about the patter. It is always about winning.

Just before Christmas, Rodgers joked he was “only renting” his new home in the plush outskirts of Liverpool. The league table does not make good reading. He needs the second half of the season to fulfil the promise of early performances.

Privately, perhaps with the slightest pang of anxiety, Rodgers also sought to know what went so wrong for Hodgson that he was discarded after just six months.

He will be relieved to know that was not solely about results, the difference in tone ahead of a trip to Old Trafford now and then far more than a few points.